Pages

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Guest commentary by JDHurf

This guest commentary was sent to me by a well known bloger, JDHURF. I thank him for his contribution and am happy to offer it as it is very reasonable and reasoning. I like the idea of creation understanding rather than more anger:

Metacrock,

I enjoyed reading your post on atheism, although I do not agree with all of it. I am a secular humanist hence I am also an atheist so this post was certainly relevant to me. I do not believe in a god, a supernatural entity, or any form of supernatural phenomena. I believe you are mistaken with large portions or your diatribe; I would like to show you in what ways I believe you are mistaken and how and why you are mistaken.However, let me begin with armistice; I do agree with your definition of atheism: the rejection of a belief in god, not merely the lack of belief, for as you said that would be agnosticism. Atheism is merely an epithet used by people to define and describe ones disbelief in a god, or supernatural entity. Atheism is also a negative-reactionary belief it does not affirm anything rather it repudiates. Atheism relies on theism to exist; without a belief in god, there cannot be a disbelief in god, in this manner atheism is reactionary.

“Atheists love to think that all people are born natural atheists, which is obviously disproved by the recent studies about brain structure and innate ideas of God.”

Most atheists, that I know, do not assert that individuals are born atheists naturally; this cannot be true. The newborn infant has not yet been exposed to the idea or notion of god and therefore cannot reject and/or disbelieve such and idea or notion. What atheists and theists alike do say is that infants are born with out the belief in god, not that they are atheists and reject the idea of god rather that they do not believe nor disbelieve such an idea or notion; for they are infants and have not yet developed the cognitive capability to do either. You mention that the idea of natural atheists has been disproved by recent studies regarding brain structure and an innate idea of god. What are these studies? Who has conducted them? Where can I review these studies and view the results myself? For I am aware of modern research into such topics through psychology and neuroscience and I have never heard of such a study and outcome.I would also like to address your assumption that Big Bang cosmology either contradicts itself or needs a supernatural force or god to justify it. The Big Bang does not require the belief that before it there was nothing or merely a supernatural existence, all it explains is the beginnings of the universe, as we know it today. The Big Bang theory postulates that the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot state, and since then space itself has expanded with the passage of time carrying the galaxies with it. The theory does not, however, force one to assume that before this extremely dense and hot state there was nothing or only a supernatural existence, it is surely fair to assume that material or “real natural” existence is in effect eternal and has no beginning nor ending in time meaning that there was no “creation” of the universe merely a growth and transormation. A few scientific proposal to submit this theory would be as lined out as follows: 1) chaotic inflation 2) brane cosmology models, including the ekpyrotic model in which the Big Bang is the result of a collision between branes 3) an oscillatory universe in which the early universe’s hot, dense state resulted from the Big Crunch of a universe similar to ours. The universe could have gone through an infinite number of big bangs and big crunches. The cyclic extemsion of the ekpyrotic model is a modern version of such a scenario.Obviously there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology either contridicts itself or requires supernatural explanations to justify iteslf. The theory certainly can be interpreted as the beginning of the magnificent explosion and expansion of the material universe, that before this extreme change there was the dense-hot state of a gravitational singularity, and that prior to this singularity and explosion there was an eternal state of natural existence; that in any case matter-energy is eternal and indestructible as defined by the Law of the Conservation of Mass and requires absolutely no supernatrual force or miracle. Here is a quote from the humanist Corliss Lamont: “Thus creative matter needs no ultimate theistic power to sustain it, no Divine Principle to impregnate it with the capacity of flowering as a whirling nebula containing billions of stars, as a warming and light giving sun or as a fertile planet that produces all the wondrous forms of life, and at their apex the human race and it’s indomitable powers of the mind. Matter is self-existent, self-active, self developing, and self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic. Intellectually, there is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing a supernatural Creator or First Cause behind the great material universe. If everything has a definite cause, the God, too, must have a definite cause and so on ad infinitum. The fact is that regardless of how far we push our inquiries, at one point or another we are compelled to assume something self existent that possesses certain powers and potentialities. Otherwise we become involved in a never ending regress of explanations and assumptions. God as a First Cause simply constitutes a large-scale miracle gratuitously intruding at the alleged starting point of everything. Furthermore, the argument form a First Cause takes for granted that there must have been a beginning of the cosmos. However, no logical necessity forces us to the conclusion that there is a beginning in time, and indeed it would seem more sensible to accept Aristotle’s opinion that the universe is eternal. In fact, those who postulate a supernatural God as Creator or First Cause usually attribute to it a state of eternal being and are therefore assuming, like most nontheists, an eternally existing reality.”Obviously, there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology or naturalism is contradictory or reliant upon supernaturalism and theism to justify itself and ultimately make coherent sense.I am a secular humanism and an atheist, I believe that the universe is entirely natural and requires absolutely no supernatural definitions in order to understand it. Scientifically there is no reason to resort to supernatural and occult postulates. You put forth one of the most intelligible arguments against atheism, naturalism, and for theism that I have read, however, it was flawed and does not, in any case, make a solid case or prove your thesis. Again I would ask what studies and experiments you where referring to in the beginning? I want very badly to review these studies for myself and view the procedures and results, please share.

Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguments for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability.
Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you.
Order from Amazon

Buy my brother's Poetry: Ray Hinman, Our Cities Vanish

Click on image to Buy this book

MUST READ
Here’s a book that has almost nothing to do with religion, but I recommend for everyone: City Limit:
While it is a novel, it rings as true in a sense as any work of nonfiction out there.
This work is about the disturbing core of our society...
This is a powerful first novel, from Lantzey Miller, which I cannot too-highly recommend.
Grand Viaduct